IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of special circumstances to file anticipatory bail directly before the court and the need for a concrete belief of arrest based on reasonable grounds as conditions precedent for pre-arrest bail.

JUDGMENT :

1. Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

2. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gopal Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Sessions Trial No. 577 of 2020 under Section 447 of the Companies Act arising out of Complaint U/ s 439 (2) R/W, Section 436 (1)(a) & (d) R/W Proviso to Section 212(6) R/ W 212 (14) of the Companies Act, 2013 R/W 621 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Companies Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar.

Preliminary objections raised by Union of India

4. At the very outset, Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India raised following preliminary objections:-

(a) applicant directly approached this Court for his pre arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. without approaching the court concerned under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

(b) applicant is the resident of United Kingdom (U.K.) and is residing in U.K. and not in India, therefore, there is no apprehension of his arrest.

Submissions advanced on behalf of Union of India with regard to preliminary objections:-

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India submitted that applicant straight-way filed instant anticipatory bail application before this Court without approaching the court concerned and no special circumstances has been disclosed by him in this regard, therefore, considering the law laid down by the Full Bench of Five Judges of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others Vs. State of U.P and another 2020 (3) ADJ 575, the instant anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

6. He further submits that admittedly applicant is the resident of London (U.K.) and investigation of the case has already been concluded and on the basis of the complaint, he has been summoned and till date no warrant has been issued against him, therefore, applicant is not having any belief of his arrest, therefore, on this ground also the instant anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

7. He further submits that if applicant is released on anticipatory bail then under the pretext of order of pre-arrest bail, he will never return to India for trial. He further submits that no blanket protection can be given to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. He further submits that there are several examples in the past, if an accused once fled from India he never turned up to face the legal proceedings.

8. He further submits that it is a fraud under the Companies Act in the tune of crores of rupees and applicant being Ex Director of one of the U.K. firm also involved in the commission of the fraud.

9. He further submits that on the summon issued, applicant can come to India and participate in the court proceedings and on arrival in India if he apprehends that when he will appear before the court concerned, he will be sent to the custody then he can file an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and therefore present application is premature.

10. He further submits that instant pre-arrest bail application filed by applicant clearly suggests that applicant is not intended to participate in the court proceedings and under the pretext of order of pre-arrest bail he will never turn up before the trial court.

Submissions advanced on behalf of applicant against the preliminary objections

11. Against the preliminary objections raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that from perusal of the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. it is apparent that anticipatory bail application ca